Draft MTP/SCS Comments Received - sacog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 1 of 1 eircomments sacog - Comment on the Draft MTP/SCS and EIR from From: MTP Comments To: Date: 12/2/2011 5:04 PM Subject: Comment on the Draft MTP/SCS and EIR from What are you commenting on? Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Name Lynn Merrick Email lynn@rocklin.com Do you want a written response? Yes Address Comments on the MTP/SCS At the session I attended, we all made clear that we want light rail extended to western Placer County. The plan does not make appropriate provisions to meet this need. Page 4 of 165
file://C:\Documents and Settings\CHoltzen\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise... Page 1 of 1 1/4/2012 eircomments sacog - Comment on the Draft MTP/SCS and EIR from From: MTP Comments To: Date: 12/5/2011 6:42 PM Subject: Comment on the Draft MTP/SCS and EIR from What are you commenting on? • Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Name Email Brigitte Driller bkdriller@ucdavis.edu Do you want a written response? No Comments on the MTP/SCS To be frank, the MTP/SCS Draft totally bummed me out. Beneath glossy discussions of sustainability, equity, and multi-modality, this draft appeared to promote a clear and disturbing goal: Business As Usual. First, I cannot understand why SACOG wants to invest so much money in new and widened roads. I bet you are thinking to yourself, 7 billion is really not that much to spend on transportation infrastructure. Let me rephrase my question: Why do you want to invest ANY money in new roadway infrastructure? The roadway network is already sufficiently built out (seriously, it is!). If congestion is the justification I may just roll over and die. More roads/lanes will not alleviate congestion in the long term. But you probably already know this, which leads me to my next point. I find your goal of reducing congestion problematic. The population growth in this region in the next 25-ish years will be immense. With this increase in population, how could congestion not increase? Regardless of whatever your model is telling you, you need to accept that congestion is going to increase, and I for one am looking forward to it. Without this increase in congestion, why would anyone choose to switch to an alternative mode? Most of all, I am severely disappointed in the targets set for nonmotorized transportation. You predict a mode share increase of less than 1% for bicycles? Really? I mean, really? If you invested zero dollars in bicycle infrastructure, bike mode share would still increase by more than 1%. Why? Because people are poor. They are getting poorer by the minute and they are going to bicycle whether you want them to or not. In conclusion, I hope SACOG will give some serious rethinking to this document. I beg you to be visionary! Set the bar high! Thanks for listening, and I look forward to a much improved final product. Page 5 of 165
Page 1 and 2: Page 1 of 1 What are you commenting
Page 3: Page 1 of 1 eircomments sacog - Dav
Page 7 and 8: Roseville Public Hearing Comments f
Page 9 and 10: file://C:\Documents and Settings\CH
Page 15 and 16: Coalition on Regional Equity MTP/SC
Page 17 and 18: Coalition on Regional Equity MTP/SC
Page 19 and 20: Page 19 of 165
Page 29 and 30: Sacramento Public Hearing Comments
Page 31 and 32: 909 12 th Street Sacramento, CA 958
Page 37 and 38: Sacramento Area Council of Governme
Page 39 and 40: SCS Health & Equity Metrics August
Page 55 and 56:
SCS Health & Equity Metrics August
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
The effort was funded by the Resour
Page 69 and 70:
Wier M, Weintraub J, Humphreys EH,
Page 71 and 72:
health by 6 percentage points; and
Page 73 and 74:
http://www.cityofrichmondgeneralpla
Page 75 and 76:
subway service, and over 50 percent
Page 77 and 78:
Large city downtown: Urban center A
Page 79 and 80:
Another population suffering from h
Page 81 and 82:
Activity-based model development is
Page 83 and 84:
METRIC: GENERAL TRANSPORTATION 7. W
Page 85 and 86:
FUTURE GROWTH METRIC: FUTURE GROWTH
Page 87 and 88:
ECONOMIC METRIC: ECONOMIC 9. a) Per
Page 89 and 90:
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION METRIC: ENV
Page 91 and 92:
STANDARDS Walking & biking The Surg
Page 93 and 94:
emissions to impairments of lung fu
Page 95 and 96:
RD 3.2 Reduce asthma hospitalizatio
Page 97 and 98:
CARB 2005 Guidance on Preventing Ai
Page 99 and 100:
Institute, Public Health Law and Po
Page 101 and 102:
EQUITY METRIC: EQUITY f. Measure an
Page 103 and 104:
HOW TO USE THE HEALTH AND EQUITY ME
Page 105 and 106:
Appendix: Metrics recommended for f
Page 107 and 108:
xxii Schoeni RF, House JS, Kaplan G
Page 109 and 110:
lxi Campbell FA & Pungello E. (2000
Page 111 and 112:
ci Sallis JF, McKenzie TL. (1991).
Page 113 and 114:
cxliv Pisarski A. (2006). Commuting
Page 115 and 116:
cxci U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory of U
Page 117 and 118:
ccxxxiv Beelen R, Hoek G, van den B
Page 119 and 120:
cclxxii Office of the Actuary, Cent
Page 121 and 122:
Signed by: Argelia Leon, Policy Man
Page 123 and 124:
I. Ensure Transportation Projects S
Page 125 and 126:
gentrification/displacement, air qu
Page 127 and 128:
Liz O’Donoghue Director of Infras
Page 129 and 130:
infrastructure in those communities
Page 131 and 132:
high speed/high volume arterials or
Page 133 and 134:
Attachment: Specific Comments about
Page 135 and 136:
January 9, 2011 Sacramento Area Cou
Page 137 and 138:
next four years so that the next MT
Page 139 and 140:
We appreciate working with SACOG, i
Page 141 and 142:
We note that the work to develop th
Page 143 and 144:
Policy 9: Greenhouse Gas emission r
Page 145 and 146:
• Modify Strategy 30.4 as follows
Page 147 and 148:
PO Box 1526 • Sacramento, CA •
Page 149 and 150:
This study by the Urban Land Instit
Page 151 and 152:
Further, while SACOG has used the b
Page 153 and 154:
from SHA to SACOG re MTP/SCS 2035 L
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165:
file://C:\Documents and Settings\CH
Page 175 and 176:
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL J
Page 177 and 178:
Consideration of this information
Page 179:
egulations can help to ensure that
Page 187 and 188:
Yuba County Elected Official Inform
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Lincoln Community Meeting Comments
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Colfax City Council Meeting Comment
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
show all

Draft MTP/SCS Comments Received - sacog

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?